I have a question concerning imitative.
This question though isn't about how it works, but instead how it should be used to keep combat fair. I have searched through rule books for other D20 games that use initiative and also the Pathfinder rules to find an answer to this question and I have been unable to find one.
What I have read suggests that at the beginning of combat, each combatant makes and initiative check.
For the purpose of this question I will show two scenarios.
Each Scenario will have two groups of cannon fodder enemy characters, such as spiders or rats, two enemy named characters, and player characters.
Each combatant rolls initiative check
Boss1
Boss2
PlayerCharacer1
PlayerCharacter2
PlayerCharacter3
Enemy Group 1:
NPC1
NPC2
NPC3
NPC4
Enemy Group 2:
NPC5
NPC6
NPC7
NPC8
In this system, player characters (more often) go in between the actions of a given group of cannon fodder characters.
As I have interpreted the rules and the suggestions for tracking initiative this the correct way to work imitative.
There are disadvantages to this system. It requires patience and keeping track of 13 different characters in order of attack and movement. In this system combat has the potential to flow more slowly.
The advantages to using this system are that the players have more control over the reactions they make to a few attacks and movements at a time.
Each combatant makes a initiative check and each group makes a group check
Boss1
Boss2
PlayerCharacer1
PlayerCharacter2
PlayerCharacter3
Enemy Group 1:
NPC1
NPC2
NPC3
NPC4
Enemy Group 2:
NPC5
NPC6
NPC7
NPC8
The disadvantages of using this system are that the players to not have reaction time to effect combat. One player may be focused by eight characters at the same time without the option of healing or moving defensively before attacks. This also makes it (generally) a game in which all NPCs act, then all Player Characters act. In this scenario player characters can be focused (more often) with eight attacks from eight sources at once, and most of them will be able to establish flanking (where possible) all at the same time.
The advantages of using a group roll are that the DM moves most NPCs at the same time, and attacks with them at the same time, speeding combat.
1) Which way is the game intended to be played?
2) Does make the game more fair to players than ?
3) Barring house rules, is legal according to the rules as they are written
I have done it both ways. As the GM, it is legal for you, if you wish it. ;)
Basically, if the underlings are all cannon fodder, I will group the initiative. If the enemies are individual threats, then they each get their own initiative.
So if you have a party of 6th level characters, and they run across 10 orcs (standard) and a shaman leader. There would be 2 initiatives. The group of orcs and the shaman.
If they run up against a war party of orcs (say they are each 4th or 5th level), then they would each get their own initiative.
But again, as the GM, you can do whatever you want.
I run it as in #2, but it's up to the DM.
Besides, in 90% of the cases, the cannon-fodder will Delay until they all can act in concert, so it's only important on the first round of combat if you insist on #1.
But the real answer is "whichever maximizes the ease of use for the DM AND the excitement and speed of play for the players."
Strictly going by the rules it is scenario 1, but if you have a lot of bad guys it can slow the game down, and it makes tracking a lot harder.
Neither one is more or less fair because if one group rolls really low of initiative then the PC's go ahead of that entire group.
1) Which way is the game intended to be played?2) Does Scenario 1 make the game more fair to players than Scenario 2?
3) Barring house rules, is Scenario 2 legal according to the rules as they are written
1) Not sure
2) Yes, Scenario 1 is much more fair to players3) Yes, it is legal.
In one of my playsessions, I have a DM who likes to throw a ridiculous number of enemies against us. She generally puts them into groups of 4-5 and has them act on group initiative. This wouldn't be a problem for "cannon fodder", but it is a major problem when you have 4 groups of 5 rangers with human & elf as their favored enemy aiming bows at you...
Small groups are fine and easier to manage, but anything over 3 enemies acting at once is a little frustrating to players.
I switch from one to another depending on the battle, the type/strength of the enemy, and how I feel.
I sometimes don't even use the combat grid and revert to more of a 2nd edition/3rd edition mash-up (against easier foes, like a group of kobolds), stating that if you are two characters on the same enemy, you automatically flank (same goes for the enemy though, lol).
DM - "You finished your orc. He dies"
Player1 (ranger) - "Can I go help the wizard?"
DM - "Sure, you use your move action to get next to the wizard's orc. Now you two are flanking him... But he first gets an attack of opportunity on you as he's holding a polearm."
Player1 (ranger) - "Ha! Do your worst!!"
Ultradan
|
I switch from one to another depending on the battle, the type/strength of the enemy, and how I feel.
I sometimes don't even use the combat grid and revert to more of a 2nd edition/3rd edition mash-up (against easier foes, like a group of kobolds), stating that if you are two characters on the same enemy, you automatically flank (same goes for the enemy though, lol).
DM - "You finished your orc. He dies"
Player1 (ranger) - "Can I go help the wizard?"
DM - "Sure, you use your move action to get next to the wizard's orc. Now you two are flanking him... But he first gets an attack of opportunity on you as he's holding a polearm."
Player1 (ranger) - "Ha! Do your worst!!"Ultradan
Ranger receives massive amounts of damage from a critical for daring to tempt the dice gods.
1) Not sure
2) Yes, Scenario 1 is much more fair to players
3) Yes, it is legal.In one of my playsessions, I have a DM who likes to throw a ridiculous number of enemies against us. She generally puts them into groups of 4-5 and has them act on group initiative. This wouldn't be a problem for "cannon fodder", but it is a major problem when you have 4 groups of 5 rangers with human & elf as their favored enemy aiming bows at you...
Small groups are fine and easier to manage, but anything over 3 enemies acting at once is a little frustrating to players.
I agree, if the group is truly 'cannon fodder' then by all means acting together makes a good deal of sense.
In my experience, having a group act together against me only means death for player characters. It's not because the player characters are doing something terribly wrong, but that the groups are doing almost everything right.
Also, when favored enemies and bows come out it does get ridiculous. Without warning, with no chance to heal we lost half of our party in one six second turn from an enemy.
Half of the party being incapacitated in one turn does seem to make the game unfair and not fun.
Like most folk I roll one init for each group of ennemy. But will sometimes split generic monsters in 'squad' of 2-5 depending of they're strengh and total number in the battle. I also split if they're not all in the same room as the player when the fight start.
I don't really know if it's legal of not.
The only question I ask myself is 'would it really change the tide of the battle that much?'
Edit : To solve the problem of having a caracther going from full health to dead in a single turn because of monster all acting at once is simple :
Don't use focus fire!; VIDEO!